coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1958, 1978 and 1980, respectively, and live in Rijeka.
5.  On 7 August 1995 the first applicant’s husband - the second and third applicant’s father - was killed by an unidentified member of the Croatian Army, during a military operation.
6.  On 4 June 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) seeking damages from the State. They based their claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all proceedings for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.
8.  On 14 November 2001 the Rijeka Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation. The applicants’ appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) on 25 September 2002.
9.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).
10.  On 13 October 2004 the applicants’ proceedings resumed.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 29 November 1991 the Croatian army requisitioned a vehicle belonging to the applicant. The vehicle was damaged beyond repair in a traffic accident on 16 May 1993.
6.  On 19 January 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia. He based his claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all proceedings for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.
8.  On 3 July 2000 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.
9.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).
10.  On 18 December 2003 proceedings resumed.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sławno, Poland.
5.  On 5 August 1993 the Housing Co-operative “Wybrzeże” lodged a compensation claim with the Sławno District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) claiming the amount of 27,880,200 old Polish zlotys from the applicant for unpaid interest on a loan.
6.  On 29 October and 9 November 1993 the court held hearings. On 30 November 1993 the Sławno District Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 18 May 1994 the Słupsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the contested judgment and referred the case to the first-instance court.
8.  On 22 November 1996 the District Court held a hearing.
9.  On 11 December 1996 the plaintiff increased the amount of the claim. Accordingly, the case had to be transmitted to the Słupsk Regional Court, which was now competent to examine it.
10.  The court held hearings on the following dates: 19 May 1997, 6 October 1997, 22 April 1998, 20 May 1998, 10 June 1998 and 14 September 1998.
11.  On 19 August 1997 an expert submitted his opinion to the court.
12.  On 23 September 1998 the Słupsk Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 17 February 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.
13.  On 23 February 1999 the applicant asked the Gdańsk Court of Appeal to be served with a copy of the judgment. On 28 July 1999 it was served on the applicant.
14.  On 30 August 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 8 February 2001 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, considering that the applicant had failed to satisfy the procedural requirements set out in Polish law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 29 March 1993 the applicant brought an action against the Bratislava II Housing Cooperative (Stavebné bytové družstvo), of which she had formerly been a member, in the Bratislava II District Court (at that time Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd). She challenged a decision of the defendant of 26 October 1992 concerning her entitlement to a new flat and the procedure applied by the defendant in dealing with her appeal against it.
6.  On 16 December 1993 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant provided further particulars of her action in that she was seeking a ruling declaring that she had the right to the new flat.
7.  On 13 January 1994 the District Court ruled that the applicant had a right to the new flat in question. The defendant challenged the judgment by an appeal (odvolanie).
8.  On 13 October 1994 the Bratislava Regional Court (at that time Mestský súd, at present Krajský súd) held a hearing of the appeal and invited the defendant to submit further evidence which the defendant did on 27 October 1994.
9.  On 26 January 1995, following another hearing of the appeal held on the same day, the Regional Court overturned the judgment of 13 January 1994 and dismissed the action.
10.  On 20 April 1995 the applicant challenged the judgment of 24 January 1995 by an appeal on points of law (dovolanie).
11.  On 21 November 1995 the applicant’s lawyer informed the District Court that he was no longer representing her. As legal representation in appeals on points of law was mandatory, the District Court invited the applicant to identify her new representative on 14 December 1995 and, in the absence of a reply, again on 26 March 1996. The applicant finally replied on 25 April 1996. The appeal on points of law was then submitted to the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) for a determination.
12.  On 4 October 1996 the Supreme Court returned the case‑file to the District Court without a decision, on the ground that the power of attorney for the applicant’s legal representation did not state expressly that it applied to proceedings on appeals on points of law as was required under the applicable procedural rules.
13.  On 11 December 1996 and repeatedly on 21 April 1997 the District Court requested that the applicant’s lawyer correct the power of attorney, which he did on 15 July 1997.
14.  On 28 October 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of 13 January 1994 and 26 January 1995, finding that the lower courts had determined the action in a manner in which it had never actually been formulated. As the action fell to be determined at first instance by the Regional Court, it was remitted to it.
15.  Between 28 March and 17 October 2000 the Regional Court held 6 hearings.
16.  On 23 October 2000, following another hearing held on the same day, the Regional Court dismissed the action. The applicant challenged the judgment by an appeal.
17.  On 19 December 2001, following a hearing of the appeal held on the same day, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 23 October 2000.
7.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Uşak.
8.  On 15 December 1997 the applicant was arrested by the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the İzmir Police Headquarters on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the Revolutionary Communists’ Union of Turkey (“the TIKB”, Türkiye İhtilalci Komünistler Birliği) and placed in custody.
9.  In her statement of 18 December 1997 the applicant declared that she aided and abetted the members of the TIKB and that she provided information to the TIKB members who were held in prison.
10.  On 19 December 1997 the applicant was brought before the Public Prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court and then before the judge, where she denied all the charges against her. She declared that her statement in police custody was taken under duress and that she had been given electric shocks. The judge ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial.
11.  On 23 December 1997 the Public Prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation, aiding and abetting the organisation, providing information to its members who were imprisoned and participating in the demonstrations organised by the organisation.
12.  On 4 June 1998 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and sentenced her to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.
13.  On 23 June 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Cassation.
14.  On 20 September 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of State Security Court.
15.  On 14 October 2000 the Court of Cassation’s decision was deposited with the registry of İzmir State Security Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Tököl, Hungary.
5.  On 9 November 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, a bank manager, and his accomplices on suspicion of fraud. In the ensuing proceedings, the applicant was assisted by defence counsel of his choice.
On 25 September 1996 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other individuals charging them with fraud and other offences.
6.  After the completion of the bill of indictment, between 1 April and 21 October 1997 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court, sitting as a first-instance court, held nine hearings. Subsequently the proceedings were halted on account of the non-appearance of a co-accused for trial and an unsuccessful motion for bias filed by the latter. The hearings resumed on 5 January 1999. Between that date and 2 June 1999 the court held 29 hearings altogether.
7.  On 2 June 1999 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated mismanagement and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The Regional Court relied on the testimonies of numerous witnesses, the opinions of experts and documentary evidence.
8.  On 28 September 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s sentence.
9.  On 20 March 2001 the review bench of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s petition for review.
6.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Warsaw.
7.  On 15 April 1992 a certain company U submitted a bill of exchange in the amount of PLN 50,000 signed by the applicant and requested the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) to issue an order for payment against him and other partners in the civil association K (spółka cywilna).
8.  On 9 June 1992 the court made the order for payment, allowing the plaintiff’s application. The applicant lodged an appeal against that order.
9.  Subsequently, the applicant applied for exemption from the court fees. On 4 July 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) finally allowed his application.
10.  The Warsaw Regional Court scheduled hearings for 22 May, 18 September, 23 October and 24 November 1997. However, all of them were adjourned. Between 8 December 1997 and 18 May 1998 five hearings were adjourned.
11.  On 18 June 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in which it upheld the Warsaw District Court’s order of 9 June 1992. The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment.
12.  On 12 March 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
13.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
14.  On 13 November 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal.
7.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in the Orenburg Region.
8.  As of 25 August 1995 the applicant has been in receipt of his old-age pension from the social security authorities.
9.  On 23 June 1997 the Federal Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions («О порядке исчисления и увеличения государственных пенсий», “the Pensions Law”) was adopted. It introduced a new scheme of calculating retirement benefits – “Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”).
10.  On 1 February 1998 the amount of the applicant’s pension was re-assessed according to the Pensions Law. The Sakmarsky District Welfare Office of the Orenburg Region (Управление социальной защиты населения Сакмарского района Оренбургской области) decided that the IPC to be applied in the applicant’s case should be 0.420.
11.  The applicant, who believed that he was eligible to an IPC of 0.641, sued the Sakmarsky District Welfare Office for insufficient increase of his pension.
12.  On 11 October 1999 the Sakmarskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region found that the defendant had misinterpreted the Pensions Law. It granted the applicant’s claim to apply the IPC at 0.641 for calculating his pension, increasing it by RUR 400, and awarded him arrears of RUR 3,647.82.
13.  On 16 December 1999 the Orenburg Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, and the judgment of 11 October 1999 became final.
14.  On 10 July 2000 the President of the Orenburg Regional Court lodged an extraordinary appeal (протест в порядке надзора) against the judgment of 11 October 1999.
15.  On 17 July 2000 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court examined the extraordinary appeal in the supervisory review procedure.
16.  The Presidium found that the lower courts misinterpreted the Pensions Law. It varied the judgment of 11 October 1999 and the decision of 16 December 1999 by reinstating the applicant’s IPC at 0.420 and annulling the previously awarded increase as well as the arrears.
8.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Chapayevsk, Samara Region.
9.  On 4 September 1995 the Commercial Court of the Samara Region (Арбитражный суд Самарской области) granted a claim by the applicant's employer – a private company – for recovery of damages against the Chapayevsk Social Security Service (Управление социальной защиты населения администрации г. Чапаевска).
10.  On 15 August 1997 the applicant's employer assigned her a part of the judgment debt in the amount of RUR 114,000,000 towards salary due.[1]  The applicant applied to the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region for execution of the judgment on 29 May 1998.
11.  It appears that by 2001 only the amount of RUR 16,000[2] has been paid to the applicant. As the judgment had not been executed in full, in 2001 she filed a claim with the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region against the Chapayevsk Social Security Service for recovery of the sum with interest.
12.  The Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region dismissed the claim on 5 April 2001 on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate her calculation of the amount of the interest.  On 19 September 2001 the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court, following an application for supervisory review lodged by the President of the Samara Regional Court, quashed the judgment of 5 April 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
13.  On 21 June 2002 the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region dismissed the claim and indicated that the execution of judgment by the Chapayevsk Social Security Service had been carried out according to the sums allocated from the budget. Thus, in 2000 the budget estimate provided for RUR 16,000 to be paid in instalments during that year. The estimate for 2001 provided for RUR 5,000 to be paid to the applicant, and the estimate for 2002 provided for RUR 12,000, out of which RUR 5,000 was paid to the applicant as of 1 June 2002. The outstanding debt remained at RUR 87,445.
It is not clear whether any further payments have been made.
7.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Costeşti.
8.  In 1995, the applicant lodged with the Ialoveni District Court a civil action against Costeşti Municipal Council claiming compensation for alleged illegal acts.
9.  On 6 October 1995, the Ialoveni District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded her 675 Moldovan lei (MDL). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.
10.  Between 1995 and 2003 the applicant complained on numerous occasions to different State bodies about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 October 1995.
11.  On 11 March 2003, after the present case was communicated to the Government, the judgment of 6 October 1995 was enforced.
12.  In 1996 the applicant lodged with the Ialoveni District Court a civil action against the Costeşti Municipal Council and a private agricultural enterprise.
13.  On 16 September 1996, the Ialoveni District Court allowed the action in part and awarded the applicant MDL 20,960.
14.  On 26 February 1998 the Chişinău Regional Court rejected the Costeşti Local Council’s appeal for failure to pay the court fees. The judgment of 16 September 1996 became final.
15.  In 1998, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law in which she argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient.
16.  On 18 August 1998, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment of 16 September 1996.
17.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments of 16 September 1996, 26 February 1998 and 18 August 1998.
18.  On 17 May 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the Prosecutor General’s appeal, quashed the judgments of 16 September 1996, 26 February 1998 and 18 August 1998 and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings.
19.  The re-opened proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Ialoveni District Court of 2 December 2002 by which the applicant’s application was struck out of the list of cases for failure to appear before the court.
4.  The applicants, Temer Tanrıkolu, İbrahim Bağdu, M. Emin Tanrıkolu, Mehmet Tayşun, A. Menaf Akyol, M. Emin Tayşun, Lokman Akyol, Hamo Tayşun, Ramazan Atak, Hıdır Şengil, Methi Tayşun, Abdurrahman Mungan, M. Sait Çek, Faruk Dilek, Ramazan Tanrıkolu, Hasan Arsu and Abdulaziz Arsu, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1977, 1948, 1960, 1956, 1950, 1953, 1971, 1950, 1960, 1977, 1973, 1975, 1964, 1974, 1975, 1949 and 1973 respectively. They all live in Silopi in south-east Turkey.
5.  Between November 1992 and February 1993 the applicants were taken into police custody in Silopi by policemen on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the PKK.
6.   At the end of their police custody, the applicants were brought before the Şırnak Magistrate's Court in Criminal Matters and were subsequently placed in detention on remand.
7.  On an unspecified date in 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment. He accused the applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, and called for them to be sentenced pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code.
8.  The applicants were all released pending trial.
9.  On 6 February 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment, ranging between two years and six months and three years and nine months.
10.  On 9 June 1997 the Court of Cassation, upholding the Diyarbakır State Security Court's reasoning and assessment of evidence, dismissed the applicants' request for appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Klimovsk in the Moscow Region.
6.  In February 1999 the applicant brought an action against the Moscow Region health department, seeking to declare invalid some data in his medical records. The disputed information related to the applicant’s degree of disability and affected his pension entitlement and fitness for work.
7.  On 1 September 1999 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims.
8.  On 10 September 1999 the applicant filed an appeal. The appeal hearing was listed for 28 March 2000.
9.  On 20 March 2000 the applicant was admitted to a hospital for inpatient treatment. On 27 March 2000 his acquaintance asked the Moscow City Court, by a telegram sent on the applicant’s behalf, for an adjournment of the hearing. The Government denied that the telegram had been sent.
10.  On 28 March 2000 the Moscow City Court adjourned the appeal hearing until 4 April 2000. The Government submitted that the hearing had been adjourned because there had been no information that the applicant had been duly summoned.
11.  On 30 March 2000 the Moscow City Court mailed to the applicant a new summons for the hearing listed for 4 April. According to the postmark, it reached the applicant’s address on 5 April.
12.  On 4 April 2000 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal and rejected it. Neither party was present.
13.  On 7 April 2000 the applicant left the hospital.
14.  On 31 August 2000 the Moscow City Court informed the applicant that his appeal had been rejected on 4 April 2000.
6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Gaziantep.
7.  On 3 September 1997, 79 packages of powder (subsequently found to be starch) were found in the belly tank of the apparently unladen lorry which the applicant had just brought into the United Kingdom. The applicant was arrested, and on 4 September 1997 he was charged with knowingly being involved in the attempted import of a controlled drug (diamorphine). He was convicted on 25 March 1998 and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal arrived at the Criminal Appeals Office on 23 April 1998, and leave to appeal and legal aid were granted on 22 March 1999.
8.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 6 March 2001. As to sentence it found as follows:
“76. ... The points ... are, first, that no diamorphine was imported and that seems to us to be the most important point, namely that this was an offence of attempt and not of actual importation. 77.Second, that the appellant appears to have occupied a lowly position in what was undoubtedly an extensive chain, stretching from source abroad into this country. 78.Third, it is said that there was no evidence that he knew of the quantity involved. However, in that respect, in a massive importation of this kind, it is not usual to investigate how far an appellant was privy to the actual amount involved, bearing in mind that it would obviously have been an extremely substantial importation. 81.We attach some slight importance to the fourth element. So far as the fifth is concerned it is not one in which of a case of this kind we regard appropriate and to take into consideration [sic]. 82.Finally, counsel has advanced upon us the argument that this appeal has taken, as it undoubtedly has taken, an unconscionably long time to come on, for reasons which are no fault of the appellant or his advisers, but appear to have related to administrative difficulties within this court. He makes reference in that respect to Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights. However, it is not necessary to invoke that Article for the court to take into account, if it considers it appropriate, a delay of that kind. 83.We consider that, absent any reason for reduction of an unusual kind, had this importation been an importation of diamorphine, as the appellant no doubt believed it to be, a sentence of 18 years could have been expected. It does appear that, on the basis that it was simply an attempt, the judge reduced the level of sentence to the order of 14 years, bearing in mind the appellant’s apparent position in the chain. 84.In our view, a somewhat greater allowance could well have been made, allowing this with the fact that the defendant has spent a time of some anxiety, no doubt, waiting for longer than he should, in order to see whether his sentence would be reduced, we consider that it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of 14 years imposed to one of 12 years’ imprisonment. The appeal upon the sentence will be successful to that extent.”
9.  The applicant was released after having served approximately one half of the 12 year sentence, and deported to Turkey.